Prosecutor accused of hiding smuggler's 2nd drug bust [Compean and Ramos]

OK, since you can't seem to think for yourself, I'll rebut the first claim made in the linked post, to show that in fact it does NOT contain any evidence for "lies" by Sutton. If you disagree, you will have to pick one lie that you think Sutton told, and provide facts, not just someone else's opinion, to back up your claim.

Since you couldn't provide a cut-and-pastable" link, I'll paraphrase the information in the document you cited.

SUTTON:No credible evidence agents were in a life-threatening situation or that Aldrete had a weapon. Agent Juarez testified he did not believe there was a threat, and Aldrete did not have a weapon, and was almost to mexico when shot by Ramos

Document's "rebuttal"both agents testified smuggler turned and pointed a weapon at them.

Document is FALSE. Neither agent testified that he pointed a weapon. They both testified that they saw something shiny in his hand which they thought MIGHT be a weapon. Neither would swear under oath that the smuggler HAD a weapon.

Document's "rebuttal"Wound channel corroberates their version

Document is FALSE. At best, the wound channel does not refute their claim, as regards the position of the defendant. There are many scenarios which explain the wound, including the smuggler weaving back and forth to avoid getting hit by bullets being shot at him. And the wound obviously cannot show they were in any danger, OR that he had a weapon, which was Sutton's claim.

Document's "rebuttal"Juarez could not see what he saw. Juarez was granted immunity

Irrelevant. If you were trying to show JUAREZ was lying, this would at least be hearsay evidence of it. But Sutton's claim as to what Juarez testified to is true, regardless of the reason Juarez said it.

Also, probably false. The document claims that "he was not involved in the incident", and therefore wonders why he would need immunity. In fact, needing immunity is a good indication that he WAS involved. And in fact, he was involved from the beginning -- he was one of the two officers (the other being Ramos) who was pursuing the dealer's van. Since the pursuit was unauthorized, he could well have needed immunity from that. Or, if he saw the incident (and Juarez claimed he did, and the two BP agents I don't know if they testified he couldn't, or where the document got the "evidence" he couldn't), maybe he needed immunity for not reporting the incident.

But in any case, offering immunity from the events of the day is consistant with his involvement in the incident.

And, as I said previously, is useful for impeachment of the witness, but not of the prosecuter.

So their first "rebuttal" does not in any way support the concept that Sutton is lying. None of their claims supports that notion with facts.

If you disagree, put up the Sutton quote, and refutation, that you think makes him a liar. And we'll talk.

It is the AFL-CIO rebuttal. Go to the web site: National Border Patrol Council of the American Federation of Public Employees -- affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

The NBPC is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. It says so right on the document that is referenced. Their web site says so as well.

The bigger question is why pro-BP people feel like it's so important to discount the affiliate relationship. I was just referencing the fact that this was the union representation for the agents, in it's broadest sense. Making a big deal out of it seems unnecessarily defensive, like you want to hide something.

Easier I guess than providing facts, you want to nit-pick over whether a poster shouldn't confuse "affiliate" with "is", as if that really was the point. I used AFL-CIO as a shorthand, because it's clearer that it's the union representation to newcomers than the "National Border Patrol Council" which sounds like some trade organization, not a union.

My statement DID reflect what Sutton said. In your comment, you specifically say that you think the arrangement allowed for MORE than what Sutton said it did. I know you think Sutton is lying, but I was saying what Sutton said. Sutton specifically said he was granted only limited access and only so he could give testimony. He was also escorted to a doctor -- now I suppose that was a "2nd time", but since he was escorted there and it was done already it didn't seem to be important to include, any more than any previous time in his life he might have been allowed to come into the country.

YOu said:

In fact, there are other ways that Aldrete-Davila could have been allowed in the United States, such as the DHS granting "Humanitarian Parole" or assistance and admission into the U.S. under the "Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA)", to name two. Those are not Visas "solely for the purpose of giving testimony" but something much different and can involve much, much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited. That is what I was interested in and would still like to know what arrangement was actually made with Aldrete.

You mention two types of arrangements, both of which you say "involve much much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited".

Which means you understand that what Sutton cited would be in line with what I said he said.

But now I see you are in fact off on another tangent, which wasn't what I said but is whether Sutton's comments were less than the entire truth.

Anyway, we've beaten this to death for no purpose, so I guess we can move on now.

I quoted what you said in my comment. I then explained why what you said led me to say what I said.

Feel free to explain why my interpretation of what you said was incorrect. But don't just say you didn't say it, or that I'm making up or twisting your words.

You said:

In fact, there are other ways that Aldrete-Davila could have been allowed in the United States, such as the DHS granting "Humanitarian Parole" or assistance and admission into the U.S. under the "Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA)", to name two. Those are not Visas "solely for the purpose of giving testimony" but something much different and can involve much, much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited. That is what I was interested in and would still like to know what arrangement was actually made with Aldrete.

You mention two types of arrangements, both of which you say "involve much much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited".

It sounds to me like you are saying that there are ways other than a "temporary visa" that he could have been left into the country (you name two), and that those ways would involve giving him a lot more access than Sutton said in his statement, thus your saying "involve much more than testimony or those instances that Sutton cited.

So, what do you mean when you say that the immunity could involve a lot more than "those instances that Sutton cited" if you are NOT saying that Sutton's list of things isn't the entire truth, and that you believe there is an immunity that is bigger than what Sutton claimed?

In other words, what is your point, if not to claim Sutton was not telling the whole truth when he said the ONLY access given to the mexican was access for the purpose of giving evidence and testimony for the trial?

And if you are NOT claiming Sutton wasn't giving the entire truth, and instead are claiming Sutton DID give the entire truth, what could that possibly have to do with your saying I was giving an OPINION of Sutton, when my statement about "temporary visa for purposes of giving testimony" is the same as Suttons statement of "In order to have the bullet removed, meet with federal investigators and to testify in court in El Paso, he was entitled to come into the United States on a limited basis within a limited geographical area and only for those purposes." -- a list of giving evidence and testimony for the trial.

Now, I suppose as a practical matter, my comments were an "opinion" of what he said, in the sense that anybody who reads somebody else's words will have their own interpretation of them, if they don't quote them. And since I gave no quote, if that's all you are stating you are just stating the obvious, which is that anything that isn't a quote is an interpretation.

Which still gets me back to, what was your point? Just that you thought I was saying I had seen the secret agreements and read the term "temporary visa" and was trying to impart that knowledge as a throwaway line?

Or that you, having a wealth of conjectures about differing ways that Sutton could have allowed an illegal into our country that would give him a lot more access than the access that Sutton CLAIMED, you were upset that I suggested that Sutton was telling the truth?

Or is it reall just that Sutton's statement was not precisely identical to my statement, and you somehow felt that my short version didn't do him justice?

Some poster claimed the drug smuggler was living in someone's neighborhood terrorising their kids. I told him the illegal was NOT allowed to be here, because his access to our country was only temporary, and was only so he could testify in the case.

I defy anybody to explain to me the substantive difference between my short "temporary visa" comment and the comment Sutton gave, given the context of a poster claiming the illegal was still living in this country.

I have read the BP union talking points. It appears most of it was presented at trial. Are the agents claiming that there was insufficient evidence to convict? Or that the jury did not believe their testimony? As to other points , what evidence was withheld from the defendants to deprive them of a fair Trial? This is an area I think could be very important for the appeal. I think everyone needs to remember that just because one side feels that a witness' testimony may be suspect or untrustworthy is not unusual and then it up to the jury to weigh the credibility of the witness and choose to believe all, some or none of the testimony. Most jury trials have contradicting evidence and testimony and the jury is the judge of the facts. I am sorry that they did not put much credibility in the the BP agents testimony, but that is not grounds to set aside the verdict. I believe that the agents cover up probably damaged their credibility with the jury.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.